Pandikannu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6540 of 2016
1. Pandikannu 2.Balu 3.Gopal 4.Kathiresan 5.Rajendran 6.Pandi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 vs.
1.The State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, M.Chathirapatti Police Station, Madurai District.
(In Crime No.298/2011) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Amirthavalli ... 2nd Respondent / De facto complainant PRAYER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the case in S.C.No.369/2014 on the file of the learned Special District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai by accepting the joint compromise memo dated 04.04.2016.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha, G.A.(Crl.Side) for R1
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.369 of 2014, on the file of the learned Special District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.
2. It is seen that a case, in Crime No.298 of 2011 for the alleged offences under Sections 147,342,366 and 506(ii) I.P.C., has been registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent Police has filed a charge sheet in P.R.C.No.55 of 2013 before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the same has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the same is pending on the file of the learned Special District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai in S.C.No.369 of 2014.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners / accused Nos. 1 to 6 and the second respondent, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) through the respondent Police, namely, A.Soundra Pandi, Sub-Inspector of Police, M.Chathrapatty Police Station, Madurai District. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of the parties.
4. The learned counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo of compromise, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed for quashing of the above case in S.C.No.369 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned learned Special District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.
5. When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016, this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:
"11. If the offences against women and children and the IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among themselves.
This Court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very slow in accepting the compromise. If the compromise is entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand. The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.
compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law."
6. Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering the nature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in S.C.No.369 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for Mahila Court, Madurai, in respect of all the accused are hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint compromise memo, dated 13.04.2016, shall form part of this Order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ENCL: HEREIN ENTER THE JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO To 1.The Special District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, M.Chathirapatti Police Station, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+one cc to M/s.R.Gowri Shankar, Advocate in SR.No.21909 PJL CSL/SKS-RR/03.05.2016 : 3P/5C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6540 of 2016 18.04.2016